Twenty years ago, James Berquist published an article in the Indiana Magazine of History in which he argued that there were distinct cultural migrations that came to Indiana. The intermingling of these cultures, Berquist said, eventually produced a new, distinct, Hoosier culture. While the article has been accepted as true, it seems that very little has been done with it. In many ways, what Berquist managed to do was document long standing assumptions held by historians and average citizens alike. Northern Indiana is different than Southern. Central Indiana does seem to be an amalgamation of the two other portions of the state.1

Before Berquist, Logan Esarey had argued that both the Hoosier dialect and its society was Southern in origin. John D. Barnhart, who stressed the importance of Upland South (chiefly the states of Virginia, Kentucky, Tennessee, and North Carolina) in the development of the Old Northwest, joined him in this assessment. Thomas J. Wertenbaker argued that the Middle West was a vast melting pot; where many different cultures intermingled to create a new one, and R. Carlyle Buley had mapped the route the Quakers had taken from the South to the Mid West in his award winning work on the Northwest Territory. These findings have been reasserted since Berquist as well. Andrew R. L. Clayton and Peter S. Onuf in their book on the Midwest argued that in order to understand midwestern society, one had to understand the cultural origins of those migrants who settled there. Additionally, Nicole Etcheson has shown how the Midwest was a cultural melting pot for the country in the years leading up to the Civil War.2

One thing that can be done is to pick up the scholarly inquiry where Berquist and the others left off. Today, it is not enough to be able to document that different cultural patterns arrived in the state, nor that they were transformed upon settlement. What must be done is to investigate one such group and witness its becoming "Hoosierized." This will reinforce Berquist’s argument that settlers were able to "pick and chose" the best cultural elements from the different streams of migrants in order to fashion a "Ohio Valley culture" that could adapt to changes in environment and in technology better than any of the component parts. In order to see if Berquist’s study stands the test of application, we will focus on Washington Township in Hamilton County, Indiana. It is part of the understudied Quaker migration out of the Upland South to the Midwest, and because of its central location in the Midwest, should show elements of a cultural transformation.3

The Quakers arrived in England’s American colonies during the 1600s. At first, they were "aggressively missionary," though they tended to first settle in Pennsylvania and New Jersey. But between 1730 and 1750, the Society of Friends spread out within the colonies, and began to prosper and proliferate in Virginia and North Carolina as well. By 1750 it was estimated that there were 50,000 members of the denomination in the colonies alone.4

But at the same time they were growing and prospering in the South, the Quakers were also making choices that ultimately caused them to leave the area. With their pacifistic view of war and by the mid-1700s, their belief in freeing their slaves, the Quakers quickly lost their evangelistic appeal and what little political power they had started to amass. In addition, they were surrounded by other Christian denominations that were more accommodating to slavery, and thus more appealing to converts. The Quakers grew only because they had large families.5

The Quakers who came to Indiana were Upland Southerners, primarily residents of Virginian and North Carolina. Once having reached the decision that their faith could not thrive in states where slavery was part of the culture, the vast majority of Upland Southern Quakers left the South for the new states of the Midwest, where the Northwest Ordinance promised a land free of slavery. Descriptions given by Quaker families leaving North Carolina to settle in Indiana mention their "disgust and hostility to the institution of slavery." This "remarkable" migration shifted the center of Quakerism in the United States from the East and South to the West and North, and gave rise to the present reality that Indiana has the largest population of Quakers in the world.6

This decision to leave the South for the Midwest came to be known as the Little Quaker Migration. According to Joe H. Burgess, Virginian Quakers most often went to Ohio to settle, while North Carolina Quakers eventually found their way to Indiana. While the Hoosier State was centrally located in the newly opened territory, it was difficult to enter in every direction except from the south. This actually facilitated Quaker migration, to the point that by 1850, Indiana had the fourth largest concentration of Quakers in the world.7

The move through Ohio was a common one among people coming to Indiana. According to Berquist, this is where the amalgamation of cultures began. And it was something that continued once they arrived in Indiana as well. Chelsea L. Lawlis noted that the different strands of migration into the Whitewater Valley of Indiana, which was initially settled by Quakers, soon started to intermingle with each other.8 Intermarriage was the first step, whether it took place in Ohio or in Indiana, for a new culture to form.

While Quaker migration was only one component of the general westward movement by the nation, it is very representative of that emigration as well. The settlement of the Midwest was done quickly and by a large number of willing Americans. Kinship networks helped facilitate the migration. The settlers came in family groups that were "youthful and large," and upon establishing a homestead, soon sent for their relatives. They were "not all poor," though wealth and education spanned the range. There was plenty of land that only needed clearing before it could be planted. It was both a religious and an economic advantage to be in an area where there was good land and no slavery, and according to James H. Madison, this made pioneer Indiana a place "of success and abundance." 9

The Quakers became a part of the corn and hog agricultural economy that dominated central Indiana. This formulation only strengthened ties to the Cincinnati area, since that is where many Central Indiana farmers took their hogs to market—and had originally migrated from. Farming was a year round community enterprise, with events such as barn raisings and harvesting crops bringing neighbors together. It was also a good life. The land was good for farming. It was generally level, and the soil was "rich and productive." Between 1850-1855, wheat sold at 50 to 60 cents a bushel, while corn sold for about half that a bushel.10

Washington Township, Hamilton County, the focus of this study, was typical of this pattern. Harmon Cox, from North Carolina, opened the then heavily wooded area for settlement in 1831. The county, along with the township of Washington, was officially formed in 1833. The Friends settled Washington Township. Quakers from Surry County in North Carolina transplanted not only their church but also the name of their old town to the township. They named it "Westfield," and Ambrose Osborn, Simon Moon, and Asa Beales laid it out on May 6, 1834. As Thomas Hamm discusses in his book on American Quakerism, it was a very Quaker town.11

The Quakers settled heavily in the eastern half of the county, in and around Westfield and Eagletown (a smaller town that had been organized in 1848). The first meetinghouse in Washington Township was organized in 1834 at the home of Ambrose Osborn, with a building erected in 1835. By 1848, the Westfield congregation had erected a $1,000 new church. Their services were simple, and were not designed around hosting evangelical revivals. 12

The population of the county soon took off. Between 1840 and 1860, residents in Hamilton County went from 9,832 to 17,310. Statewide, the population from 1830 to 1860 went from 343,031 to 1,350, 428. While good land and free soil were an attraction to post-War of 1812 immigrants such as the Quakers, continued immigration does not account for the population boom. As Andrew R. L. Cayton points out, this growth was sustained by reproduction rather than by more immigrants from the Upland South. By mid-century, Indiana was no longer the only available destination for those seeking new land. 13

Washington Township in 1850, like the county and the state, was booming. The township was home to over 2,000 people. Its settlers were a mixed lot, as is to be expected under the Berquist model. They were primarily, though not exclusively, employed in agriculture. They were young. And most had Southern roots, which spread from the East and through Ohio into Indiana14. They offer a good example not only of the transformation from pioneer to settlement, but also in the creation of a Hoosier culture.

Over half of those counted in the 1850 Census list their place of birth as Indiana. Their parents, if the numbers are any indication, came primarily from North Carolina and Ohio. As is to be expected following the Berquist model, the other large number of settlers came primarily from the Upland South. Fifty-seven were born in Virginia, forty-five in Tennessee, forty-four in Kentucky, and thirty-six in South Carolina. The only other state with significant numbers was Pennsylvania, where twenty-five settlers were from.15

But, how did they get here? From the census one can clearly see Berquist’s lines of immigration. While there were multiple starting points in the East, many of the 118 "multistate families" (where at least one parent listed a different place of birth than their children) came through Ohio and then into Indiana. Though this was the most popular option, it was not the only one available to the residents of Washington Township. Some of them, following a more southerly route, came up through Tennessee and Kentucky before arriving in Hamilton County.16

Once the area was settled, other family members flocked to Washington Township. These direct migrants make up a small, but important means of immigration into Indiana. 17 This shows not only the prosperity of the area, but also the strength of kinship induced migration.

As is to be expected with over half the township’s population laying claim to a Hoosier birth, the men and women of Washington Township were youthful. This reflects not only normal procreation, but also the youthfulness of the families having children. Both life on the frontier and agriculture required resources that only the young could provide. Over 1,200 of them were under the age of 20. Additionally, over 600 were under the age of 45. Only about 180 were 45 or above.18 Youthfulness required certain things, such as schools. In this, the Quakers were especially well prepared.

The Quakers put great emphasis on education, as did many other Protestant denominations. But despite their example, most people in the county, and in the state, which included the vast majority of Upland Southerners, were opposed to the idea of public education. In 1848, 61 percent opposed "free schools." That number increased to 72 percent a year later. This opposition was common throughout the state. People had to become convinced that schools were needed. A public school was founded in Westfield in 1856. Westfield started a high school before the rest of the state. In 1861, the Quakers founded Union High School in Westfield, which included former slaves as students. Quakers in Indiana eventually founded their own "college" as well, named "Earlham" in 1847, after an English Quaker’s estate; the idea was to keep it "simple." No diplomas were issued until 1857, and the name "college" did not appear until two years after that. It was a small, denominational school. 19

The schools had a direct affect on the number of illiterate people in the county. While the total population was growing, the number of illiterate members of the community stayed constant. In 1840, there were 1,271 people who could not read. Yet in 1860, that number had grown by less than 200 individuals in all of Hamilton County.20

The township was home to over 380 farmers. While this was the primary source of employment, the township’s towns were bustling centers of commerce as well. The 1850 Census notes twenty-nine carpenters, twenty-one blacksmiths, and ten wagon makers in the area as well. There were also a myriad of other occupations in Washington Township, which befitted its settled status. There were basket makers, shoe makers, a dentist, a barber, four tailors, three chair makers, three pump makers, a butcher, a carriage maker, a moulder, and even a silversmith listed among others.21

The first mill in the township had been established in 1836. Just four years later, a brick manufacturer was also in business. In Westfield by 1856, there were also a blacksmith, shoemaker, potter, hatter, spinning wheel manufacturer, a wagon builder, a saddle and harness shop, a tannery, and a mill. Owned by Isaac Williams since 1848, the flourmill was soon producing 60 barrels of flour a day. Westfield then, as it approached the 1850s, was becoming a "typical" town. It was prospering, and while the heart of an agricultural community, was no longer bound to agriculture alone for its existence.22

These merchants helped to ease Indiana from the pioneer era and into that of commercial agriculture. There was money to be made in businesses like those found in Westfield. The towns merchants helped to found, unlike pioneer towns, were not located on rivers, because they had no need for river transportation. Most of these towns never grew large, but they were still important community centers. The town drew farmers together, allowing them to be self-supporting in terms of both goods and services, and as an outlet for trade. 23

But what affect did the continual migration have on occupations? In other words, were these various craftsmen coming into Indiana, or was Washington Township producing more than just farmers? Let us start by looking at agriculture a bit more in depth. Of the farmers in the township, only seventy-three had been born in Indiana. This reflects the youthfulness of the population of course. North Carolinians and Ohioans made up an additional 216 farmsteads, many of whose children had been born in Indiana, and might inherit the farm. Virginia, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Kentucky also reared farmers, with the rest coming in single numbers from a handful of other states. 24

So, if Hoosiers did not dominate the fields, did they dominate the trades that made up the towns in the township? What we can see from the census is a growing number of Indiana born craftsmen taking up were relatives left off. While there were twenty blacksmiths in the township, a full quarter of them were born in Indiana. Similar percentages can be found for other trades as well, such as carpenter or wagon maker. While North Carolinians, Ohioans, and Virginians dominated the non-agricultural job market, young Hoosiers were well on their way to replacing them.25

One business not found in Westfield was the saloon. This was a Quaker town, which meant that the home, school, and church were all intertwined. Like the Methodists, the Society of Friends stood against the saloon. Crimes were moral violations, more than they were violent attacks. Liquor was public enemy number one.26

But just because they were settling side by side and even shared many of the same values, did not mean that Quakers and Methodists got along. What was going on during this period of settlement was a readjustment of Quaker ideals and culture. They were undergoing a process that would transform them from Southerners into Northerners. This process was extremely thorough, to the point that the Quakers turned their back on both their Southern and pacifistic heritages. The key issue in this transformation was slavery. 27

As early as the 1830s, the Society of Friends was on record as opposing the expansion of slavery into the territories. Quakers were often at the forefront in organizing local antislavery societies, though they did not generally join colonization societies. Quakers also harbored a great mistrust of "New England abolitionists," which had as much to do with the Society of Friends’ migration from the South as it did with theological issues.28

Still, the Quakers were known for their anti-slavery leanings, and this made Hamilton County attractive to other likeminded groups. A Wesleyan Methodist congregation organized in Westfield during 1844 made the town a center of abolitionist sentiment. This included becoming part of the Underground Railroad network, as early as 1840. When William Bundrum died in 1855, he left part of his estate "for the purpose of aiding or assisting destitute fugitive slaves."29

This did not mean that members always agreed on the issue, however. The Eagletown Friends were considered to be "radical" in their anti-slavery pursuits, which caused a break with the Westfield congregation, which lost a 100 of its own members to the "disunity" spurred by the issue. The Westfield group had their own church and burial ground, thanks to the support of the Bales, Moon, Roberts, Stout, Hammer, Hiatt, and Warren families. They had contact, and family ties, to the state’s leading abolitionist, Levi Coffin.30

Statewide, about 2,000 of the estimated 25,000 Friends joined to form the Antislavery Friends. The split was not over policy, but rather over the speed at which antislavery should move in the country. Orthodox Friends were for "patience and order," while radicals wanted immediate results and were more willing to forge alliances beyond the Quaker meetinghouse in order to accomplish their goals. The rift between the two groups lasted until 1857, when they were officially reunited.31

Even with this political split, the area remained friendly to African American settlement. This was against the statewide trend, which did not promote racial diversity. According to Robert M. Taylor and Connie A. McBirney, "Indiana was the least ethnically diverse among the five Old Northwest States" in 1850. And yet, it had the second largest black populations of those same states. The reason was simple: there was a direct relationship between Quaker and black settlement, and both initially were involved in agriculture. This despite the fact that few blacks became members of the Society of Friends. 32

Thus, African Americans have been a part of Westfield almost from its founding. In 1850, there were forty-three blacks that were part of the community; all but three of the African American men were farmers. Two worked as carpenters while Reuben Hord was the town barber. The Quakers taught the children of these families, and almost all were members of "white" churches in the town, especially the Wesleyan Methodists. Regardless of where they might actually attend church, the Quakers saw it as their Christian duty to help African Americans.33

It was this sense of duty that was to play a significant role in the transformation of American Quakerism. The divide within the denomination was part of the national and statewide wrestling over race. By 1850, as the antislavery crisis continued to grip the Society of Friends, many Hoosiers came to the conclusion that Indiana needed a new Constitution. As the pioneer era passed away into a settled atmosphere that allowed places like Westfield to prosper, the 1816 Constitution was found to be lacking in safeguards to continue the progress in moving from subsistence agriculture to commercial endeavors that was being made. One safeguard that was suggested was to keep freed blacks out of the state, so as to insure that white Americans would be able to thrive without the threat of cheap labor, and to stop the supposed economic drain that African Americans caused on the state’s economy. This sentiment became Article XIII of the new Constitution, and quickly became anathema to the Quakers of the state. They had left the South, and brought many blacks with them, to escape such explicit displays of racism. 34

Reaction by the Friends in Washington Township was swift. Eagletown and Westfield Quakers were not in favor of Article XIII of the 1850 Constitution, and worked to repeal anti-black laws passed in the state. Despite their work, Hamilton County did not always welcome others with similar feelings. Famed abolitionist Frederick Douglass was made to feel very unwelcome when he visited the area, to the point of being run out of Noblesville, and was actually attacked in beaten in nearby Pendleton.35

But the political ramifications of Article XIII and slavery worked to reunite the Society of Friends in Washington Township. It was in the halls of politics, not from the front of meetinghouses that the Quakers were to find their strength in mid-century, for they were a political force to be reckoned with, not just within Hamilton County but in the state as well. As Emma Lou Thornbrough pointed out, they were "more numerous and influential than Congregationalists or Episcopalians" at mid-century. In 1850, there were eighty-nine meetinghouses, with 15,000 members, concentrated in seventeen Indiana counties. Though some of the membership was unsure about political involvement, most Friends accepted being involved in politics as part of their Christian duty. 36

Because of their domination of the settlement in and around Westfield, their contributions to the economic life of the community, it is not surprising that the Quakers who lived in Hamilton County wielded considerable political control. They were staunch backers of the Whig Party, and quickly converted to the Republican platform by 1860. The Republicans were seen as both being a non-Southern party and as the Protestant political party in the country. Both of these were pluses as far as Quaker voters were concerned, though generally not seen as such by other transplanted Upland Southerners. 37

Like other Midwesterners, the Quakers in Hamilton County came to define the union in terms that could exclude the South. The Democrats never embraced the market revolution that had caused Quakers to build shops in Westfield at the same time they were planting crops. The Northern culture they were now a part of, had in fact helped to build in Indiana, was in need of its own political party to represent it.38 The acceptance of the Republicans by the Quakers is a clear rejection of their Southern roots, and shows just how "Hoosierized" they had become.

This can best be seen in their reaction to the start of the Civil War. During the War of 1812, Quakers had refused to serve, almost to a man, and had been punished for it. Yet, by 1860, the Society of Friends was, on one level, a deeply patriotic denomination. They loved the freedoms provided to them because they lived in the United States. But on the other hand, they were against war. Thus, they could not officially endorse the Civil War, despite the great temptation to do so because they realized that the war was about slavery.39

And so officially, the Quakers did not become involved in the Union war effort. They did support benevolent groups attached to the war effort, however, making their largest mark in the areas of sanitation reform and helping freed slaves. They believed that by doing these things they were serving their nation without violating their relationship with God. 40

But, as Jacquelyn Nelson found, Quaker men did violate their church’s peace testimony and served in the Union armed forces. They did so for a variety of reasons, ranging from patriotism (often deeply entwined with their religious beliefs), to economics, to family. Some served in noncombatant roles, some entered the armed forces only when Indiana was attacked (Morgan’s Raid of 1863), while a few others were actually drafted. While antislavery feelings were bandied about at home, such a reason was not often cited for enrollment at the front. So, despite their Quaker upbringing, those who served gave "typical" answers for service that were used by other Americans. 41

Like their fellow Hoosiers then, some Quakers flocked to combat during the Civil War. Indiana had some 300,000 men of military age when the war broke out. Of that number, 197,141, or nearly two thirds, served during the war. Not all of them returned home, however: 25,028 were killed in total, 7,243 in battle and the rest by disease. Nelson found that 1,212 Quakers served their county during the war from Indiana. 42

And what of the Quakers in Hamilton County? According to Augustus Finch Shirts, who wrote a history of the county in 1901, "Hamilton County was conspicuous during the war of the Rebellion for the fidelity of her citizens to the cause of the union." According to Burgess, Westfield sent 159 men off to serve in the Union armed forces, while Eagletown contributed twenty-three to the war effort. A total of 101 Quakers from Hamilton County served during the war. Westfield sent the third largest contribution (sixty) in the state. When the men from the Antislavery congregation are added into that total, the town has the second highest totals. From the town, twenty-one were killed in action, thirteen died from disease, one was listed as missing, and five deserted. Quakers made up nine of the dead.43

In addition to showing how active the Friends were during the war, Nelson also found that the soldiers faced an uncertain future once they returned home from the service to their meetinghouses. While many Quakers rallied to the flag in some way once the war started, not all members of the Society were willing to forget the peace testimony. This often made the lives of returning soldiers difficult. Of the sixty members of the Westfield meeting who fought during the war, seven were disowned because of their service, and twelve made confessional offerings before they were returned to membership. Still, thirty-four of the soldiers were not disciplined at all when they returned home from the fighting.44

What is interesting is that despite the fact that the antislavery schism was officially over, men who left Westfield to serve still distinguished themselves in the records by which of the two sides of the schism they had been a part of. Perhaps it was a badge of honor. Or perhaps, despite the unification process caused by the debate over Article XIII and the war, not all the Antislavery Friends were ready to return to the meetinghouse that had been so late in realizing the true dangers of the South’s peculiar institution.

The Civil War was not the only cause of the change that overtook Westfield and the rest of Hamilton County. The transformation was not caused by iron shot, but rather by iron rails. Between 1880 and 1883, the Monon Railroad opened up the county to the wider world. The coming of the railroad helped to solidify old ties to the East, despite Southern cultural roots.45

There were other forces of change at work as well. The Quaker community that had its center in Westfield was slowly becoming more and more like its neighbors. They were awash in a sea of Methodists! The Quakers became increasingly evangelical; something that Lawlis noted was evident by the time of the Civil War. Berquist argued that religious awakenings of the period were forming "a new cultural development" in the shape of evangelical Protestantism.46 His "cultural development" eventually consumed the Quakers who settled in Washington Township, Hamilton County, and the State as a whole.

This process had started back during the migration out of the South. As the streams of migrants merged in Ohio, and then spilled into Indiana, there was an exchange of ideas. The Quakers had left the South because of their inability to reform Southern culture. In the Midwest they intermingled with other groups who sought, at some level, to reform society. Evangelical Protestantism put a premium on reform, and this was something that the Quakers could relate to and accept. What they had not anticipated was the degree to which accepting this maxim would open them to change as well.47

In the end, just as Berquist predicted, we have Southern Quakers becoming evangelical Hoosiers. The Westfield of Hamilton County was, by the 1880s, a very different place than the Westfield of Surry County had been in the 1820s. The Quakers who migrated to Indiana had been transformed by cultural and economic factors beyond their immediate control. In the process, however, they helped transform their new state and their old one as well.

2. Logan Esarey, History of Indiana (Indianapolis: Hoosier Heritage Press, 1970), 419-420; John D. Barnhart. "The Southern Element in the Leadership of the Old Northwest," The Journal of Southern History, 1 (May 1935), 186-197; Thomas J. Wertenbaker, "The Molding of the Middle West," The American Historical Review, 53 (January 1948), 223-234; R. Carlyle Buley, The Old Northwest: Pioneer Period, 1815-1840, II, (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1978), 474; Andrew R. L. Cayton, Frontier Indiana (Indianapolis: Indiana University Press, 1998), 271; Andrew R. L. Cayton and Peter S. Onuf, The Midwest and the Nation: Rethinking the History of an American Region (Indianapolis: Indiana University Press, 1990), 27-28; Nicole Etcheson, The Emerging Midwest: Upland Southerners and the Political Culture of the Old Northwest, 1787-1861 (Indianapolis: Indiana University Press, 1996), 1, 4-9, 127-129, 139.

3. Berquist, "Tracing the Origins of a Midwestern Culture," 3, 15-16, 25, 31; Thomas D. Hamm, The Transformation of American Quakerism: Orthodox Friends, 1800-1907 (Indianapolis: Indiana University Press, 1992), ix-xiv.

4. L.C. Rudolph, Hoosier Faiths: A History of Indiana’s Churches and Religious Groups (Indianapolis: Indiana University Press, 1995), 194; Western Yearly Meeting, Semi-Centennial Anniversary Western Yearly Meeting of Friends Church (Plainfield, IN: Publishing Association of Friends, 1908), 11.

5. Rudolph, Hoosier Faiths, 194; Hamm, Transformation, 2-6, 9, 11; David Brian Davis, The Problem of Slavery in the Age of Revolution, 1770-1823 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1999), 213-254.

6. Hamm, Transformation, 12-13; Rudolph, Hoosier Faiths, 195; Western Yearly Meeting, Semi-Centennial, 11-12; Jacquelyn S. Nelson, Indiana Quakers Confront the Civil War (Indianapolis: Indiana Historical Society, 1991), 2-3; Anonymous, History of Hamilton County (Chicago: Kingman Brothers, 1880), 138-139; Western Yearly Meeting, Semi-Centennial, 105; Barnhart, "Southern Element," 192.

7. Joe H. Burgess, Hamilton County in the Civil War (n.p., 1968), 1; Ralph D. Gray, editor, The Hoosier State: Readings in Indiana History, Indian Prehistory to 1880 (Indianapolis: Indiana University Press, 1989), 153, 285; Chelsea L. Lawlis, "The Great Migration and the Whitewater Valley," Indiana Magazine of History, 43 (June 1947), 129.

8. Berquist, "Tracing the Origins of a Midwestern Culture," 17-21; Chelsea L. Lawlis, "Population of the Whitewater Valley, 1850-1860," Indiana Magazine of History, 44 (June 1948), 161, 164-166.

9. James H. Madison, The Indiana Way (Indianapolis: Indiana Historical Society, 1986), 58-60, 63-64; Western Yearly Meeting, Semi-Centennial, 35; Cayton and Onuf, The Midwest and the Nation, 29; Cayton, Frontier Indiana, 268; Rudolph, Hoosier Faiths, 196; Chelsea L. Lawlis, "Settlement of the Whitewater Valley, 1790-1810," Indiana Magazine of History, 43 (March 1947), 33-34.

10. John F. Haines, History of Hamilton County Indiana: Her People, Industries, and Institutions (Indianapolis: B.F. Bowen and Company, 1915), 179; Donald F. Carmony, Indiana, 1816-1850: The Pioneer Era (Indianapolis: Indiana Historical Society, 1998), 45-46; Berquist, Tracing the Origins of a Midwestern Culture," 13-14, 27-28; Logan Esarey, The Indiana Home (Indianapolis: Indiana University Press, 1976), 69, 73, 88.

11. Haines, History of Hamilton County, 179, 235; Frank S. Campbell, The Story of Hamilton County Indiana (Noblesville: Hadler Press, 1962), 199; Augustus Finch Shirts, Primitive History of Hamilton County (n.p. 1901), 156, 204; Anonymous, History of Hamilton County, 135, 137; Leanna K. Roberts, Stuart M. Neal, Byron O. Barker, and Joseph G. Roberts, editors, A History of Westfield and Washington Township (Noblesville, IN: Image Builders/Rowland Printing Company, 1984), 11-12; Hamm, Transformation, xii.

12. Haines, History of Hamilton County, 182, 320-321; Shirts, Primitive History, 157, 160, 210; Emma Lou Thornbrough, Indiana in the Civil War Era, 1850-1880 (Indianapolis: Indiana Historical Society, 1992), 609-610; Hamm, Transformation, xii. Campbell, Story of Hamilton County, 202.

13. Esarey, History of Indiana, 605; Cayton, Frontier Indiana, 267; Madison, Indiana Way, 59.

14. 1850 Census, Hamilton County, Washington Township.

15. 1850 Census, Hamilton County, Washington Township.

16. 1850 Census, Hamilton County, Washington Township.

17. 1850 Census, Hamilton County, Washington Township.

18. 1850 Census, Hamilton County, Washington Township.

19. Thornbrough, Indiana in the Civil War, 468, 517-518; Madison, Indiana Way, 110, 114; Campbell, Story of Hamilton County, 199-200; William J. Reese, editor, Hoosier Schools: Past and Present (Indianapolis: Indiana University Press, 1998), 3, 22; Etcheson, Emerging Midwest, 78-79; Esarey, Indiana Home, 115; Haines, History of Hamilton County, 182-183, 237, 345; Shirts, Primitive History, 207; Taylor and McBirney, eds., Peopling Indiana, 14; Cayton, Frontier Indiana, 296; Hamm, Transformation, 39-40.

20. Esarey, History of Indiana, 607.

21. 1850 Census, Hamilton County, Washington Township.

22. Haines, History of Hamilton County, 180-181, 235-236, 239; Campbell, Story of Hamilton County, 201; Esarey, History of Indiana, 68-69, 575, 583, 588-589; Carmony, The Pioneer Era, 72.

23. Madison, Indiana Way, 86-90, 93-95.

24. 1850 Census, Hamilton County, Washington Township.

25. 1850 Census, Hamilton County, Washington Township.

26. Western Yearly Meeting, Semi-Centennial, 105; Haines, History of Hamilton County, 238; Shirts, Primitive History, 207; Esarey, History of Indiana, 590, 614; Etcheson, Emerging Midwest, 85-87; Cayton, Frontier Indiana, 291-292.

27. Chelsea L. Lawlis, "Migration to the Whitewater Valley, 1820-1830," Indiana Magazine of History, 43 (September 1947), 228, 235; Chelsea L. Lawlis, "Prosperity and Hardtimes in the Whitewater Valley, 1830-1840," Indiana Magazine of History, 43 (December 1947), 373; Hamm, Transformation, 24-27

28. Carmony, The Pioneer Era, 565-567; Thornbrough, Indiana in the Civil War, 17, 20; Roberts et al, ed., A History of Westfield, 13; Lawlis, "Migration to the Whitewater Valley," 228-229; Etcheson, Emerging Midwest, 112.

29. Haines, History of Hamilton County, 308-309; Campbell, Story of Hamilton County, 42; Shirts, Primitive History, 207, 210-211; Burgess, Hamilton County and the Civil War, 2, 4-5; Esarey, History of Indiana, 612; Carmony, The Pioneer Era, 565; Anonymous, History of Hamilton County, 61; Susan Bevelhimer, Abstracts of the Will Records of Hamilton County, Indiana: 1824-1901 (Owensboro, KY: Cook and McDowell Publications, 1981), 30.

30. Haines, History of Hamilton County, 321; Burgess, Hamilton County and the Civil War, 1; Western Yearly Meeting, Semi-Centennial, 36-37; Roberts et al, ed., A History of Westfield, 78-79; Chelsea L. Lawlis, "Changes in the Whitewater Valley: 1840-1850," Indiana Magazine of History, 44 (March 1948), 79-80.

31. Hamm, Transformation, 32-35, 61; Rudolph, Hoosier Faiths, 204-205; Carmony, The Pioneer Era, 566; Thornbrough, Indiana in the Civil War, 23-24; Nelson, Indiana Quakers, 4-5; Lawlis, "Changes in the Whitewater Valley," 77-78.Robert M. Taylor, Jr. and Connie A. McBirney, editors, Peopling Indiana: The Ethnic Experience (Indianapolis: Indiana Historical Society, 1996), 13, 616, 638; Cayton, Frontier Indiana, 270-271, 299; Thornbrough, Indiana in the Civil War, 15.

32. Roberts et al, ed., A History of Westfield, 70-71; Thornbrough, Indiana in the Civil War, 610; Western Yearly Meeting, Semi-Centennial, 166.

33. Madison, Indiana Way, 138-141; Thornbrough, Indiana in the Civil War, 15-16; Etcheson, Emerging Midwest, 94-101.

34. Haines, History of Hamilton County, 238; Campbell, Story of Hamilton County, 42; Burgess, Hamilton County and the Civil War, 3; Taylor and McBirney, eds., Peopling Indiana, 14; Esarey, History of Indiana, 611; Cayton, Frontier Indiana, 297; Madison, Indiana Way, 106-107.

35. Thornbrough, Indiana in the Civil War, 25, 609

36. Rudolph, Hoosier Faiths, 203; Hamm, Transformation, 61; Madison, Indiana Way, 196; Etcheson, Emerging Midwest, 109; Cayton and Onuf, The Midwest and the Nation, 92; Patrick W. Riddleberger, George Washington Julian: Radical Republican (Indianapolis: Indiana Historical Bureau, 1966).

37. Cayton and Onuf, The Midwest and the Nation, 66, 91.

38. Lawlis, "The Great Migration," 127-128; Hamm, Transformation, 66-69; Thornbrough, Indiana in the Civil War, 627; Nelson, Indiana Quakers, 14.

39. Thornbrough, Indiana in the Civil War, 627-628; Nelson, Indiana Quakers, 80.

40. Nelson, Indiana Quakers, 29-43, 95.

41. Madison, Indiana Way, 197; Nelson, Indiana Quakers, 105.

42. Shirts, Primitive History, 305; Burgess, Hamilton County and the Civil War, 146-213; Nelson, Indiana Quakers, 101-102, 105.

43. Nelson, Indiana Quakers, 101-102.

45. Haines, History of Hamilton County, 238; Gray, ed., Hoosier State, 284-285.

46. Hamm, Transformation, 48-51; Rudolph, Hoosier Faiths, 205-210; Lawlis, "Population of the Whitewater Valley," 172; Berquist, "Tracing the Origins of a Midwestern Culture," 23.

47. Hamm, Transformation, ix-x, xiii, 74, 83, 88, 121, 145, 160, 172-173; Madison, Indiana Way, 98-99, 104.

Articles

Barnhart, John D. "The Southern Element in the Leadership of the Old Northwest." The Journal of Southern History. 1 (May 1935), 186-197.

Berquist, James M. "Tracing the Origins of a Midwestern Culture: The Case of Central Indiana." Indiana Magazine of History, 77 (March 1981), 1-32.

Lawlis, Chelsea L. "Settlement of the Whitewater Valley, 1790-1810." Indiana Magazine of History, 43 (March 1947), 23-40.

------------. "The Great Migration and the Whitewater Valley." Indiana Magazine of History, 43 (June 1947), 125-139.

------------. "Migration to the Whitewater Valley, 1810-1830." Indiana Magazine of History, 43 (September 1947), 225-240.

------------. "Prosperity and Hard Times in the Whitewater Valley, 1830-1840."

Indiana Magazine of History, 43 (December 1947), 363-378.

------------. "Changes in the Whitewater Valley: 1840-1850." Indiana Magazine of History, 44 (March 1948), 69-82.

------------. "Population of the Whitewater Valley, 1850-1860." Indiana Magazine of History, 44 (June 1948), 161-174.

Wertenbaker, Thomas J. "The Molding of the Middle West." The American Historical Review, 53 (January 1948), 223-234.

Anonymous. History of Hamilton County. Chicago: Kingman Brothers, 1880.

Bevelhimer, Susan. Abstracts of the Will Records of Hamilton County, Indiana: 1824-

1901. Owensboro, KY: Cook and McDowell Publications, 1981.

Buley, R. Carlyle. The Old Northwest: Pioneer Period, 1815-1840. Two Volumes. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1978.

Burgess, Joe H. Hamilton County and the Civil War. N.p. 1968.

Campbell, Frank S. The Story of Hamilton County Indiana. Noblesville: Hadler Press, 1962.

Carmony, Donald F. Indiana, 1816-1850: The Pioneer Era. Indianapolis: Indiana Historical Society, 1998.

Cayton, Andrew R. L. Frontier Indiana. Indianapolis: Indiana University Press, 1998.

----------- and Peter S. Onuf. The Midwest and the Nation: Rethinking the History of an American Region. Indianapolis: Indiana University Press, 1990.

Davis. David Brian. The Problem of Slavery in the Age of Revolution, 1770-1823. New York: Oxford University Press, 1999.

Esarey, Logan. History of Indiana. Indianapolis: Hoosier Heritage Press, 1970.

--------. The Indiana Home. Indianapolis: Indiana University Press, 1976.

Etcheson, Nicole. The Emerging Midwest: Upland Southerners and the Political Culture of the Old Northwest, 1787-1861. Indianapolis: Indiana University Press, 1996.

Gray, Ralph D., editor. The Hoosier State: Readings in Indiana History, Indiana Prehistory to 1880. Indianapolis: Indiana University Press, 1989.

Haines, John F. History of Hamilton County Indiana: Her People, Industries, andInstitutions. Indianapolis: B.F. Bowen and Company, 1915.

Hamm, Thomas D. The Transformation of American Quakerism: Orthodox Friends, 1800-1907. Indianapolis: Indiana University Press, 1992.

Madison, James H. The Indiana Way. Indianapolis: Indiana Historical Society, 1986.

Nelson, Jacquelyn S. Indiana Quakers Confront the Civil War. Indianapolis: Indiana Historical Society, 1991.

Reese, William J., editor. Hoosier Schools: Past and Present. Indianapolis: Indiana University Press, 1998.

Riddleberger, Patrick W. George Washington Julian: Radical Republican. Indianapolis: Indiana Historical Bureau, 1966.

Roberts, Leanna, Stuart M. Neal, Byron O. Barker, and Joseph G. Roberts. Editors. A History of Westfield and Washington Township. Noblesville, IN: Image Builders/Rowland Printing Company, 1984.

Rudolph, L.C. Hoosier Faiths: A History of Indiana’s Churches and Religious Groups.

Indianapolis: Indiana University Press, 1995.

Shirts, Augustus Finch. Primitive History of Hamilton County. N.p. 1901.

Taylor, Jr., Robert M. and Connie A. McBirney, editors. Peopling Indiana: The Ethnic Experience. Indianapolis: Indiana Historical Society, 1996.

Thornbrough, Emma Lou. Indiana in the Civil War Era, 1850-1880. Indianapolis: Indiana Historical Society, 1992.

Western Yearly Meeting. Semi-Centennial Anniversary Western Yearly Meeting of Friends Church. Plainfield, IN: Publishing Association of Friends, 1908.

1850 Census, Hamilton County, Washington Township.